Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Amendment of Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996]:

Viscount Bledisloe: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 16, at end insert—
	"( ) Provided that where—
	(a) there is a recognised code regulating the conduct of a particular activity or part of any activity;
	(b) the alleged offence relates to conduct in the course of that activity or part thereof; and
	(c) the conduct in question is contrary to an express provision of that code,
	it shall not be a defence to show that that conduct is in the normal and humane conduct of that activity."

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the amendment seeks to deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, immediately after Committee. We are very grateful to him for raising it, and hope that once the amendment is made he will be entirely content with the Bill.
	At present, it is a defence to anyone charged with intentionally causing undue suffering to show that what he did was,
	"in accordance with a recognised code, or . . . in the normal and humane conduct of a lawful and customary activity".
	Those two alternatives are necessary, first, because there will be some activities for which there is no code, and secondly, because there could be conduct, even within activities where there was a code, that was not covered by the code's provisions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made the point that where there is a code and what one has done is contrary to its provision, as the Bill stands it would be open to a defendant to say, "I have done something against the code. None the less I shall call witnesses to show that it was in the normal and humane conduct of a lawful and customary activity". The noble Lord said that that was wrong, and we agree.
	Therefore, the amendment provides that where there is a code and one's conduct is contrary to an express provision in it, one cannot say that the conduct was normal and humane. For example, if a code says that anyone who sets traps must inspect them at least once every 12 hours or so, and one has not inspected the trap for 20 hours, it is not open to one to say, "I know that's what the code says, but I shall call witnesses to show that it's perfectly normal and humane to inspect traps once every 24 hours".
	As I said, we are grateful to the noble Lord. I hope and believe that the amendment will satisfy him. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment. It ensures that people could not duck out, for want of a better term, of the code by using,
	"normal and humane conduct of a lawful and customary activity",
	as an excuse. I find the amendment particularly attractive because it will encourage the use of codes of practice. I am very much of the opinion that that is the right way forward when dealing with animal welfare issues and, in particular, field sports. I welcome the amendment, as I would anything that encouraged the production of well thought through and useful codes of practice on the subject. The amendment helps in that direction.

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am a signatory to the amendment and support it for the reasons given by the noble Viscount. I particularly support it because it was initially suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I am always delighted to support anything proposed by a Minister from that department. I look forward to the comments from my noble friend on the Front Bench with slight trepidation, being aware, as with the Hunting Bill, that sometimes governments, having proposed matters such as the regulatory Bill, subsequently reject them. I trust that that will not be the case on this occasion.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment and believe that it will be a great improvement to the Bill. It will ensure that the codes of practice will be regulated. That is particularly so under its proposed new paragraph (b), where,
	"the alleged offence relates to conduct in the course of that activity or part thereof".
	The authority can make regulations and codes, and undoubtedly will. As amended in such a way, the Bill will ensure that no undue cruelty occurs. I believe that it improves the Bill very substantially.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the amendment. When the original Bill was brought before us, it obviously had slight shortcomings. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, have taken away the comments made by the Minister in this instance, and we, too, welcome the amendment. I am sure that we all want people to have regard to their conduct. The amendment will provide much greater openness in the way in which the code is adhered to, and we support it on these Benches.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, at previous stages of the Bill, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Whitty, made the Government's general position with regard to the Bill quite clear, and I shall not detain your Lordships by reiterating it.
	In that context, we welcome the efforts of noble Lords to address some of the defects identified by my noble friend Lord Whitty. The amendment goes some way—but, unfortunately, not the whole way—to making the Bill work better within its own terms of reference. It is still defective in two respects: one technical and one more fundamental.
	The technical defect is that the amendment is expressed in terms of a defence, while what is needed is a provision that excludes the effect of the exemption in subsection (2)(b). As it stands, therefore, the amendment does not work.
	The more fundamental defect is that the amendment does not address the question of what happens when there is no recognised code of practice governing a particular activity. The authority created by the Bill to approve codes of practice will be under no obligation to approve any code in relation to any particular activity; nor will the bodies charged with making such codes be required to do so in any particular case.
	Therefore, if a code is not made—for example, because there is no agreement among those concerned or because the Secretary of State cannot approve an unsatisfactory code—the wide open and unacceptable exemption for acts,
	"done . . . in the normal and humane conduct of a lawful and customary activity",
	would apply without any check. That might be an incentive for some bodies not to produce or agree on codes which would restrict their current activities.
	Therefore, without further amendment, the Bill would still create a significant and damaging loophole in the provisions protecting the welfare of wild mammals.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment, but, for two reasons, I am deeply disappointed with the reply of the noble Baroness. First, the amendment was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who expressly undertook to let me know if it contained any technical defects or anything with which he was not happy. Having not heard from him, and having received that express undertaking, I confess that I am disappointed now to be told that there is said to be something wrong with it.
	On the technical front, I confess that I consider the noble Baroness also to be wrong. The amendment states only that, where there is a code and one has done something contrary to it, there is no defence under subsection (2)—that is, one cannot use the other limb. Of course, it preserves situations where there is no code—because there will be various minor activities or activities which perhaps never have a code attached to them. There may also be occasions when an activity has a code but something arises which is not covered by the code because it is an unusual event.
	The noble Baroness said that there is a risk that there will not be a code. But the point of the amendment is that it is deeply in the interests of bodies, which are likely to be invited to make codes, to ensure that a code is put forward which is acceptable not only to the authority but also to the Secretary of State. The point is that, where there is a code, if a body seeks to prosecute someone, that person has only to walk into court and say, "Here is the code. That is what I was doing and that is what I am allowed to do".
	The alternative of having to call witnesses to show what is in the normal course of conduct is obviously far more expensive. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, the amendment provides more and more encouragement to bodies to say, "Please appoint us. We would like to make a code. Here is the code and please tell us if you want it improved". The aim is to make as many codes as possible covering as much of the sport as possible. I am disappointed with the noble Baroness's reply. None the less, I commend the amendment to your Lordships.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mancroft: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
	"(ix) The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals"

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of the Countryside Alliance and as a member of many years standing of the RSPCA.
	During the Committee stage of the Bill, the noble Viscount brought forward amendments to establish an authority within the Bill comprised of a number of representatives from different organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, supported those amendments. Indeed, they were supported on all sides of your Lordships' House.
	The purpose of the amendment is simply to add the RSPCA to the list of organisations placed on the face of the Bill which would nominate members to make up the authority. They would not be obliged to nominate members, but they would have the power to do so.
	During the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, agreed to consider the inclusion of other organisations as members of the authority, as laid out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. In his response at that time, the Minister—I am sorry that he is not in his place but it is very nice to see the noble Baroness there instead—commented that,
	"the list of members specified in the noble Viscount's amendment—
	that is, the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe—
	"does not give the impression of a balanced authority".—[Official Report, 10/10/03; col. 551.]
	I believe he was concerned that the list included insufficient representatives of animal welfare, although I do not believe that he noticed—not on purpose but by accident—that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is one of those bodies. I believe that most people would accept that that organisation has a certain amount of interest in animal welfare. The purpose of the amendment is to correct the situation.
	I ask noble Lords to throw back their minds a little to when the 1996 Act, which this Bill amends, came into force. That Act brought about a working together of the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and what was then the British Field Sports Society. I was involved in putting together that Bill. It started as a Private Member's Bill in another place. It had two provisions that the RSPCA was not happy with: one was the exceptions for various activities; and the other was a rather strange list of offences. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, before us today, corrects both those errors and produces a Bill that is pretty much as the RSPCA had originally drafted and presented the Bill to the House of Commons a few years ago. I therefore hope that this Bill will be supported as it goes forward.
	At the time of the earlier Bill the RSPCA said that it strongly urged that wild mammals should receive a far greater degree of protection under the law. That is precisely what the Bill now before the House does. In giving evidence in 2002 on the Animal Health Bill, the RSPCA said:
	"a specific offence of cruelty should remain, but should be worded without a restrictive list of particular activities which may date over time".
	This Bill achieves exactly that. Therefore I am sad that the RSPCA has not supported the Bill, but this amendment would allow it the opportunity to become part of an effort that would genuinely improve the welfare of all wild mammals across the board rather than discriminating against one or two activities that may result in increased suffering. I beg to move.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. He has taken on board the points that the Minister made in Committee. I hope that the RSPCA will welcome being on the face of the Bill as a member of the authority. After all, the establishment of the authority would raise the standards for animal welfare across the board. Furthermore, I believe that supporters of and donors to the RSPCA would be genuinely mystified if it were not to approach these issues constructively. The RSPCA mission statement reads:
	"The RSPCA as a charity will, by all lawful means, prevent cruelty, promote kindness to and alleviate suffering of animals".
	As my noble friend pointed out, the RSPCA's policies on animal welfare strongly urge that wild animals receive a far greater degree of protection under the law. Therefore, it would be curious if the amendment is not welcomed by the RSPCA.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I support the amendment and I agree with what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in summing up in Committee. It is clear that the authority will be more representative with the name of the RSPCA added to it. I should declare an interest in that I am an associate of the British Veterinary Association. I believe that the Minister was right when he said that animal welfare organisations should be included and this is a direct response. I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 1(c) of the schedule which states:
	"up to two further members appointed by the Authority".
	That might encourage other animal welfare bodies to apply for membership. The list would be much better balanced by the inclusion of the RSPCA and that would be in line with the Minister's comments at the end of the Committee stage of the Bill.

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I agree with all that has been said on both Benches opposite. The amendment is in response to a comment by the Minister and, as is clear, we are keen to meet comments and suggestions from all sides. I hope that the RSPCA agrees with the amendment. Members of the RSPCA would be absolutely bewildered if it declined. I am happy to accept the amendment.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I declare an interest as an associate member of the British Veterinary Association and as a member of the Countryside Alliance, which I forgot to do on the previous occasion.
	When we debated which organisations should sit on the authority it was suggested that the list was perhaps not as balanced as it might be. The list includes organisations that are directly involved or that allow hunting to continue over their land. The first two named within the code are the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. It is important that they were included.
	I believe that the amendment moved by my noble friend is a good addition. I hope that the RSPCA will accept this invitation to participate. It would be very strange if it did not because, as other noble Lords have already quoted, its mission statement declares that this is why it is in being. Additionally, it is important to state that this gives protection to all wild mammals and not just to some species that have been considered previously. I hope that with the inclusion of those three bodies the Government will feel that the authority, as it will be composed in the future, will perhaps be slightly more balanced than the Minister suggested it now is.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we welcome the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to address a concern that was raised by my noble friend Lord Whitty. The addition of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is highly respected in the area of animal welfare, to the membership of the authority goes some way towards establishing a suitably balanced and credible body. I note the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, of the possibility of additional members being appointed.
	As with the earlier amendment we believe that the change fails to go far enough to satisfy our concerns. Even with the addition of the RSPCA the authority remains unbalanced in its representation. I remind noble Lords that the management and protection of mammals is not simply a rural issue. It is my understanding, following a statement made by the RSPCA, that it is unaware of and has not been involved in the preparation of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The society is on record as not supporting the Bill. The RSPCA's position on the Bill has been one of opposition in part because the Bill would create untried concepts, structures and powers.
	Simplification of the law is to be welcomed in principle in relation to the main offence, but not at the price of discarding many years of established legal precedent. I understand that to be the stated view of the RSPCA. That remains the Government's position. I remind noble Lords that I speak in the context of the Government's general position as expressed in the past on this Bill.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the virtually universal support that I have received. After the debates that we have had in your Lordships' House in the past few weeks in respect of other legislation relating to wild animals, it is refreshing to see that when people get together around a table they can take major steps forward in agreement. I hope that other people listening and watching will see what can be achieved when people get together.
	I am immensely grateful for the Minister's comments. Like other noble Lords, I am very sad about the attitude of the RSPCA. I was aware of the statement that it has made. The society objects because the Bill appears to enshrine in it codes of good practice in quite a distant way—through the authority—and yet it seemed happy for that to happen in other legislation it supported. I believe that its response is slightly illogical. We shall have to live with that.
	This is a major step forward. This is the first time we have had this type of animal welfare legislation. The RSPCA is the leading animal welfare organisation probably in the world. Although I may disagree with some of the politics of its council, I shall be second to no one in my support for the work done by its inspectors and professional staff. Their leadership in this area and their example is to be welcomed. I hope that they will play their part in this matter—I am sure they will—despite any rather silly politics that may go on in the background.
	I wonder what the thousands of people who give money to the society and who support it will think. This is the first piece of major wild animal welfare legislation to come on to the statute book. It is agreed on all sides of this House. Yet the powers that be at the largest animal welfare society cannot put their feelings behind them and join in with this major step forward.
	I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have supported me.

Earl Peel: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may remark on a point raised by the Minister about the imbalance of those appearing on the list in Schedule 1. Paragraph 1(c) clearly states that up to two further members can be appointed by the authority. If one selects two further members along with the RSPCA, I would suggest that that balance can be addressed.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for those comments. He is of course entirely correct. In these areas there will always be a balance between welfare and conservation. At the moment it is six to two. There is availability for two more organisations to join the authority. I hope they will come forward. I am sure they will. The balance can be achieved.
	However, one should also bear in mind that the organisations work collectively. It is not a match. They do not have to balance precisely. Their influence is as a collective authority. I am sure that that balance can be achieved when people get together. It is also worth remembering that the British Deer Society and the Game Conservancy Trust, which are nominated, have welfare as well as conservation obligations. So they could almost be sitting on both sides. It is a step towards balance. It may not be perfect; nothing ever is. There is room for further organisations to join. I hope they will.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Postal Services Act 2000 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2003

Lord Davies of Oldham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the order predominantly deals with certain postal references in existing primary and secondary legislation, bringing them in line with references and provisions contained within the Postal Services Act 2000. The House will be reassured to learn that the DTI considers these to be the last outstanding legislative change needed to implement the framework for postal services set out in the Postal Services Act 2000. The substance of the draft order is mainly that of a legislative "tidying up" nature.
	Your Lordships may recall that a feature inherent in the provisions and the underlying policy surrounding the Postal Services Act 2000 was that the old statutory Post Office corporation should be dissolved, following the transfer of the business, property, rights and liabilities, and so on to the new plc company. Amendments contained within this draft order clear the way towards being able to dissolve the old Post Office corporation as far as concerns a legislative context, therefore completing the implementation of the Postal Services Act 2000.
	The 2000 Act provided order-making powers geared to working towards this outcome. It has provision for making a dissolution order, as well as provisions for making orders to amend primary, secondary and local legislation consequential on the passing of the Act. There has already been one consequential modifications order during 2001, making necessary amendments to postal references contained in primary and secondary legislation, plus two local consequential modifications orders, the last of which came into force on 10th July 2003, making necessary amendments to local legislation.
	I should explain why these outstanding issues have not been dealt with in the 2000 Act itself or in the earlier order. In that regard the purpose of this order is to deal with areas that have been identified as requiring amendment after the earlier items of legislation came into force. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that the Post Office is an organisation that has been in statute for a considerable period of time and that there is a great deal of legislation that includes references to the Post Office and postal services. Therefore, although regrettable, I hope your Lordships may consider it understandable that some minor references were overlooked on those earlier occasions. The department is confident that this draft order, along with the recently in force second local consequential order, will tidy up all the outstanding postal legislative references in statute. It does not plan to make any further consequential modification orders under the Postal Services Act 2000 after this one, if it receives approval.
	As your Lordships will have seen, the draft order is largely technical in its content and attempts to do nothing that has not been done before in the previous orders made under the Postal Services Act 2000 and laid before this House.
	Articles 1 and 3 of the order are fairly self-explanatory. Article 1 gives the citation for the draft order. It provides that the draft order shall come into force on the day after the day it is made and that the draft order does not extend to the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man. Article 3 merely gives effect to Schedules 1 and 2 of the draft order.
	Article 2 makes amendments to two Post Office works Acts. The effect is to construe references to the "Post Office" contained in these Acts—including references which have effect as such references—as references to the "Post Office company", which is now of course known as Royal Mail Holdings plc. It also allows for any function executable by the Post Office company under these Acts to be executable by any relevant subsidiary of the Post Office company.
	The amendments are merely technical in nature. They update references to the old Post Office corporation, bringing them in line with what is now required under the Postal Services Act 2000 and putting them in the correct context required to facilitate that the relevant parts of the company are able to conduct their business as envisaged. They are similar to amendments contained in Article 2 of the recently in force local consequentials order.
	Article 4 consists of transitional and saving provisions made in respect of modifications made in Schedules 1 and 2 to the order. It is prudent that saving is given to cover any permission granted, annulments made or confirmations given by virtue of the entry to a "universal service provider" contained in Schedule 4 to the Public Health Act 1961, and also to cover any outstanding offences in relation to the Theft Acts or any repeal the draft order makes of a previous saving to a repeal. Making any amendments to these areas of statute without a saving would not be sensible, as any such changes would have a substantive effect on any issues that were still live at the time this draft order comes into force. I am sure noble Lords are familiar with such common practice in other legislation which we have considered.
	Schedule 1 makes certain modifications to a few enactments as a result of provisions contained within the Postal Services Act 2000. These amendments change postal references in these items of legislation to bring them in line with postal references contained in the Postal Services Act 2000. The modifications are similar in nature to those made in the first consequentials order. They deal with interpretations of the term "mail bag" in the two Theft Acts, replacing them with the new definition envisaged of them in the 2000 Act to address the current inconsistency between these items of legislation. It also changes the references made to the "Post Office" in Section 139(3) of the Post Office Act 1969 to make sure that they now relate to a universal service provider as defined in the 2000 Act. That is necessary as the Post Office reference here relates to it in its context as a statutory undertaker performing the universal service. Now that there is potential for more than one universal service provider the reference should no longer be solely to the Post Office company.
	Schedule 2 makes certain repeals that again are needed to clear the way forward for dissolution of the old corporation. Some of these repeals are made in conjunction with amendments contained in Schedule 1 and also in conjunction with the saving provisions contained in Article 4 of the draft order.
	Finally, I should like to confirm to the House that in my view the provisions of this order are compatible with the convention rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. As I have mentioned before, the order attempts nothing that has not been done before in the previous orders. Accordingly, I commend this draft order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. The order might well be described as a "tidying up process"—a more appropriate description for it than for the European constitution, as the Prime Minister describes it.
	As the Minister said, the order is an amendment to the consequential amendments order passed in 2001, which made several drafting amendments to the Postal Services Act 2000. The fact that both the original amendments and those before us are needed is an example of "legislate in haste; amend at leisure". In his helpful Explanatory Memorandum, the Minister of State in another place dismisses the new problem as,
	"a handful of further changes that need to be made"
	that
	"have come to light".
	The amendments relate to relatively recent legislation, such as the Post Office Works Act 1959, the Post Office (Subway) Act 1966 and the Post Office Act 1969. I am told that an essential talent for any lawyer—and, by the same token, a parliamentary draftsman—is to be able to use an index. It is a little surprising that those Acts were overlooked when the original primary and secondary legislation was prepared. Bearing in mind the complexities of cross-referencing in legislation, which I readily recognise, I must also ask why a blanket, catch-all phrase could not have been included in the original Act or the previous set of consequential amendments to cover any reference to the Post Office in any other Act.
	I make that suggestion in the hope that there is not a further handful of changes lurking somewhere or, worse, still, a time bomb somewhere in the statute book on which we shall have to expend even further parliamentary time and legal expense. I hope that the Minister is right in claiming that this is the last such order. Subject to those comments, we do not oppose the order.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, if this is indeed the final point of the long saga that started in 2000, it would be wrong to let this moment pass without saying some words over the corpse of a wonderful organisation that existed for more than 300 years. I find it offensive for the service that I joined—I declare an interest as a telegraph boy at the age of 14—known as the Post Office, now to be referred to as,
	"a universal service provider (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000)".
	A universal service provider? Recent decisions of that provider would make one wonder what on earth the Government were doing when they created the public limited company from the renowned publicly owned corporation. A universal service provider that shuts down an underground railway and throws more traffic on the streets of London? A provider that moves mail from trains to lorries? This is a sad day and it would be wrong for this moment to pass without my once again—the House is probably fed up to the back teeth with hearing this—complaining about what my Government have done to a wonderful organisation. It is sad that the words "Post Office" are to be replaced with the almost offensive description, the "provider".
	Given recent events, the present management structure, created by my Government, appears incapable of providing a universal service. Its methods during the past two weeks are reminiscent of the Stasi in East Germany. Only this week, we have seen evidence of local managers being asked to buy disposable cameras to photograph staff who may be talking to casual workers and a whole range of guidelines on how to entrap decent people who are doing their job. Universal service provider? I hope that the Government are ashamed of what they have done. Even if I am the only voice to say this in the House, I want to place on record my sadness at seeing the words "Post Office" go and "universal service provider" put in their place. I apologise for taking the House's time.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, made his opinions—a few of which I share—vehemently known during the passage of the Post Office Act 2000.
	The order refers to the Post Office (Subway) Act 1966. As I understand it, part of that Act concerns the Post Office underground railway running between Mount Pleasant and Paddington railway station which, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, reminded us, the Post Office corporation—whatever it is now called—has now in its wisdom decided is surplus to requirements. Some months ago, the All-Party Rail Freight Group visited that railway and discovered exactly what were the problems, but also that it was still in working order and could be used, although the law would have to be changed if it were to be used for any other purpose. Can the Minister update us on that and tell us whether any firm has approached the Post Office either to use the railway under licence or to purchase it for the transport of goods—which is currently not allowed—underground along Oxford Street, for example, or anywhere along the route?

Lord Newby: My Lords, a debate on the Post Office discussing the issues raised by the order is fiddling while Rome burns. In the longer term, the Post Office has been under mounting threat from e-mail, text messaging and the introduction of competition, but the recent industrial action has turned the clock back a long way in the methods employed by management and arguably, to a certain extent, by groups of workers.
	I was pleased yesterday to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, has been re-harnessed to the traces to go back to the Post Office to work with both sides to try to bring some order to the chaos of industrial relations that still pertains at the Post Office. We must wish him well and hope that we have a better chance to discuss the Post Office in your Lordships' House in future. But for today, we support the order.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for those contributions and did not think that even on these technical matters we could refer to the Post Office without some more general issues emerging in this short debate.
	I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there is nothing of fiddling while Rome burns here. After all, the charge against Nero was that that was all that he was doing and that he was even delighting in doing that irrelevant thing while the calamity was going on around him. I think that the noble Lord will recognise that those in the Post Office and the DTI have been busy on a whole range of other issues, many related directly to our present discontents while, at the same time, a small amount of activity has been directed to the tidying up order.
	I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, says. It would have been difficult to have provided what he recommended—some kind of catch-all element in the original Act to allow for all cross-references to be incorporated. As I remember, the Bill was the subject of fairly intensive debate during its passage through both Houses. Rightly, Members of both Houses are insistent that there is precision in legislation avoiding such catch-all phrases—which, after all, can in other circumstances be interpreted as a let-out for Ministers and the executive. So provision for subsequent orders had to be made—and two such subsequent orders have had to be made—for the best reasons of parliamentary scrutiny. I suppose that I am putting my head on the line by asserting as strongly as I can that this is the last of these tidying up orders. I carefully read the previous debate and noticed that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury did not say that then; how wise he was. He may regard me as a rather more foolish substitute, but I am assured that all the work has now been done to examine every possible area of cross-reference. We should not need another such technical order.
	I anticipated that the subject could not be debated without the presence of my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead. I would not presume to anticipate his remarks, but I could probably have gauged their tenor, not least because, like the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I read the reports of debates on the Bill in 2000. I know how trenchantly my noble friend criticised the legislation in principle. He remains irreconcilable to the new order. That is his right and a tribute to his consistency.
	I think that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, will recognise that we all appreciate that the past couple of weeks have been very difficult for the management and workforce of Royal Mail. No doubt, mistakes have been made. The two sides are now together within a framework in which we hope a just solution will be reached. We have hopes for the future, against the background to which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred.
	My noble friend Lord Sawyer is now actively engaged by Royal Mail to explore further why there was such a breakdown in relations, leading to the most recent disputes. We hope that he will be as constructive and successful in the next few weeks in achieving prolonged industrial peace in Royal Mail as he has been in improving relations since he took up the assignment two or three years ago.
	I recognise the criticism expressed by my noble friend Lord Clarke. No doubt, he will pursue further opportunities to discuss Royal Mail issues in the House. I look forward to such an occasion, when, I have no doubt, my noble friend will express trenchant views, whatever the situation at the time.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is right in mentioning the Post Office railway and the fact that legislative change would be needed. It is in working order. I was aware that a group visited the railway to consider that aspect. The noble Lord is also right to indicate that the asset has been used solely for post. It is a unique and interesting facility, and we would lose its advantages at our peril. I cannot give the noble Lord any real reassurance today, as I have not been briefed fully on the matter. He has caught me by surprise, but I would be happy to respond more fully in writing. The whole House will have considerable sympathy with his views. I hope, therefore, that I can give a positive response on how we will use that unique asset. I have no doubt that there would be attendant difficulties with the operation of a rail link built for such a specific purpose.
	I hope that the House feels that I have dealt with the points raised. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 2003

Lord Warner: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Warner: My Lords, the House's agreement is sought to proposals to increase the registration fees paid by dental auxiliaries to the General Dental Council from £25 to £68.
	Two classes of dental auxiliary are covered by the regulations: dental hygienists and dental therapists. They may practise only if they are registered with the General Dental Council. Their annual registration fee is, in effect, a licence to practise. By virtue of Section 45(7) of the Dentists Act 1984, Parliament is required to ensure that increases in fees are justified.
	There are some 3,900 practising dental hygienists. Working under the direction of a dentist, they can clean, scale and polish teeth; provide local infiltration analgesia; apply prophylactic materials such as fluoride gels and fissure sealants; and give oral hygiene advice. Until recently, dental therapists have had a lower profile. Currently there are only about 370 in practice, and, like hygienists, they work under the direction of a dentist.
	Dental therapists may extract deciduous teeth, do simple fillings, give local anaesthetics, undertake cleaning, scaling and polishing and give oral hygiene instruction. Originally, dental therapists could work only in hospitals and community dental services, but, in June 2002, we removed that restriction. As a result they may now work in all fields of dentistry, including NHS and private high street dental practices.
	In essence, the fee increase is required to contribute to the costs incurred by the General Dental Council in modernising the regulation of dentistry. The GDC has two main objectives: the introduction of an effective fitness to practise regime for dentists and dental auxiliaries; and the extension of regulation to other classes of dental auxiliary, including dental nurses and dental technicians.
	Unfortunately, those necessary reforms are costly. Half a million pounds is required for the development of computer systems to keep records on the new registrants. More administrative staff are needed to oversee the registration process, and the GDC must engage lawyers for hearings of conduct cases or appeals when a decision is challenged. As in other fields such as law and architecture, membership of a profession with major public responsibilities carries an overhead due to the cost of regulation.
	In his report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, Professor Sir Ian Kennedy said:
	"An effective system of professional regulation must be owned collectively. Further it needs an independence from the professions and from government which allows it to act in the public interest".
	The General Dental Council's reforms should be seen in that context.
	We are working on an order under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999 to amend the Dentists Act. It will specify that the main objective of the General Dental Council is the promotion of high standards throughout the profession and in education and training. The order will also empower the GDC to register the other classes of dental auxiliary, including dental technicians and dental nurses. Registration will make it a statutory requirement for those staff to obtain formal qualifications and empower the GDC to investigate and intervene where fitness to practise is in question.
	We hope to publish a draft of the Section 60 order for consultation before the end of the year so that, subject to Parliamentary approval, it may come into force during 2004. The proposals before the House are necessary for the modernisation of the regulation of dentistry. I recognise that those are significant increases and that they exceed the rate of inflation since 1999. But it is not only the dental auxiliaries who are charged higher fees; the registration fee for doctors has increased from £80 to £290 since 1999 and that for dentists has increased from £135 to £300.
	Dental auxiliaries earn less than dentists, and that is still reflected in the lower fee that they are charged. However, they are not immune from the regulatory reforms necessary to protect the public, and it is right that they should contribute to the cost of those reforms. I hope that my explanation has been helpful and that noble Lords will approve the regulations.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Warner.)

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order this morning. Before commenting on its specifics, I wish to make it plain that these Benches support the work of the General Dental Council. We believe that effective professional regulation is important to give assurance to the public about the practitioners with whom they deal—that they are professionally qualified and that complaints are dealt with correctly. It goes without saying, therefore, that we believe that the General Dental Council should be properly funded for that work.
	The concerns that I shall raise are about the level of the fees that we are being asked to approve and the way in which the fees are being introduced. I will start with the level of the fees. Today, a dental auxiliary pays £25 in annual registration fees. In 2004, that will rise by a pretty significant 172 per cent to £68. Although it is not covered by this order, the GDC intends to raise the fee to £75 the year after, which will mean an increase of 200 per cent over two years. The Minister already mentioned that that is in excess of the general inflation rate. If we apply that rate and allow for the fact that there has been no increase in the fees since 1999, dental auxiliaries might have expected something of the order of £28. If we allow this order to proceed, the figure will be nearly two and a half times, which is a significant amount.
	That increase is in stark contrast to what will happen to dentists' fees over the same period. The Minister said that they would increase from £135, but they currently pay £300. Over the next two years they will suffer increases—46 per cent over that £300 level by the end of 2005. In monetary terms, therefore, the increase over two years will be relatively much less significant than for dental auxiliaries. What steps have the Government taken to satisfy themselves that the increases proposed in the order are reasonably calculated? At first sight they indicate a lack of financial planning, given the very steep rate of rise. What inquiries has the Department of Health undertaken to ascertain the reasonableness of the underlying expenditure projections supporting these increases?
	There are also issues of equity. Many dental auxiliaries work part time and many are women combining home and caring responsibilities with part-time work. When dental therapists do work, their average income is only £11 an hour. That puts into context the steep rise in these fees. What inquiries have the Government made to the GDC to ensure that the way in which the fees are set reflects equity between the different components of the dental profession? Do the Government believe that the way in which fee increases have been shared out reflect ability to pay and fairness?
	The Minister told us this morning that the GDC needs extra money for modernisation—which is, as we know, one of the buttons to press to get new Labour approval. Part of that modernisation includes extending the regime to dental nurses and dental technicians for the first time. Will the fees paid by today's dental auxiliaries pay for the regulation of new sections of the profession? If so, the correct treatment would be for the new group of professionals to bear those costs, spread over a number of years perhaps if significant up-front costs were involved. The Minister quoted some costs this morning for the total modernisation package. My question focuses specifically on the extension of the arrangements to the extra groups. Have the Government ensured that the fee increases are not in fact a hidden cross-subsidy between today's dental auxiliaries and the new ones that will be brought on board?
	Lastly, we come to the issue of consultation. Government Ministers often stand at the Dispatch Box and proclaim their allegiance to proper consultation, so today I should like to explore that. The Explanatory Memorandum to this order states quite categorically that the GDC consulted professional bodies representative of dental auxiliaries about these increases and the fee increases "were generally supported".
	Our own researches with the Dental Hygienists Association revealed a real concern about the fee increases, for precisely the economic reasons that I outlined earlier. What inquiries have the Government made about the quality of the consultation carried out by the GDC? Are they satisfied that the views of the people who will actually have to pay these fees have been taken into account?
	It is not the custom of this House to oppose statutory instruments and I shall not be doing so today, but the Minister said that the Government intend in future that such fee increases will be subject to the even less effective negative procedure. I have a real concern about that based on my researches for today's debate. I am not at all sure that the interests of fairness and justice for the elements of the dental profession that inevitably wield little power are served by that. As a result of today's debate, I hope that the Minister will, if nothing else, look again at whether the arrangements within the GDC warrant the proposed weakening of parliamentary scrutiny.

Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Baroness confirmed one matter for me. She mentioned an increase of 172 per cent. That is also what I made it. The noble Baroness's skill at maths is probably a little better than mine, so I was quite reassured. The figure is the nub of the whole matter. It is a huge increase. There is an expanding number of people in a new field of dental work that is probably beneficial to society as a whole and we want those people to be regulated.
	I would not disagree with any of the questions asked by the noble Baroness—so this will be a comparatively short speech. However, can we have some assurance that this level of increase is a one-off? How was the figure calculated? Is it justified? Are the professionals themselves driving this increase or the Government? Paying a fee of £68 per year to be able to carry out a profession may not be crippling, but a couple of other increases of 100 to 200 per cent on top of that may stop people entering the profession, especially if they have to come up with the money all at once. We need assurance that such a thing will not happen in the future and that there is a regular way of calculating increases. That would ensure that degrees of worry would be removed. Other than that, we have no real objection to the order.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord because they were my concerns when I was being briefed to deal with the order. I can tell the noble Baroness that we have seen the detailed workings of the General Dental Council. These issues are always difficult for the Government in the sense that, although we are satisfied that the increases are justified, we must remember that the General Dental Council is accountable not to the department but to the Crown via the Privy Council. Successive governments have accepted that the GDC should be self regulating.
	One of the checks and balances in the system is that dentists and dental auxiliaries vote members on to the General Dental Council. If they do not like the job that they are doing and the cost incurred in doing it, they can vote them off, so there is a degree of self regulation. It is a self-regulating system. We have looked at the workings and we believe that they are reasonable.
	I mentioned that the General Dental Council is—and this is almost inescapable—trying to modernise its procedures, particularly through investment in better IT systems. To some extent, whenever one invests in IT systems, the cost is up-front, before future generations benefit. That is an inevitable consequence for all of us. It is not easy to have a system that deals with just one bit of the profession, rather than another bit of the profession. There is probably a degree of step change in the level of investment.
	They are not easy judgments. We have examined the workings. It is worth bearing in mind that we have not had an increase in fees since 1999. With hindsight, one might think that it was better to keep the fees more up to date than to leave them for a time and then have large increases. The General Dental Council might like to consider that thought for the future. The noble Baroness asked me about next year's fees. I cannot comment on them. The General Dental Council has not submitted any proposals for next year, so we have not seen the workings. I cannot comment on that.
	I may be able to give the House some reassurance on consultation. There is a dental hygienist and a dental therapist on the General Dental Council. When the increases were first proposed, those two members were asked to canvass the views of their colleagues. Their responses were that the need for the increase in fees was generally accepted and that the increase in status that would result from registration was welcome. I do not claim that every member of the two professional bodies, the British Association of Dental Therapists and the British Dental Hygienists' Association, was in favour. I cannot believe that, in the circumstances, anybody said, "Hip, hip, hooray! Higher fees!". It appears that, when approached directly, people accepted that the pay and status considerations were important and that a fee increase of the kind proposed was justified.
	I cannot do more than that, other than to say that we would not have laid the regulations before the House if we did not believe that the fees were justified. It is an uncomfortably large increase, but, as I said, it is all about professional self-regulation. The profession is taking steps to modernise its procedures for registering applicants and is preparing itself, to some extent, for a future in which more dental auxiliaries will be subject to registration and the kind of disciplinary processes that have long applied to dentists.
	With that explanation, I hope that we can agree the regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 2003

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 16th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	The purpose of the instrument is to provide grant-aid to assist owners of English fishing boats to decommission their vessels. It will contribute to efforts to bring the size of the fleet into better balance with the available stocks. In turn, that will help with the recovery of those stocks. What is more, a smaller fleet will also be a more viable one. I will return to that issue in a moment.
	The grant scheme works in a way similar to those we have run before in this country. Fishermen wishing to avail themselves of the scheme make a financial bid, representing the amount for which they will agree permanently to remove their vessel from the fishing fleet. Bids that offer the best value for money are accepted. The vessel owner arranges for the boat to be scrapped, and the grant is paid. In scrapping his vessel, the owner gives up the fishing licences that he holds for it. Those licences are cancelled. We do not issue any new licences under our fisheries management system, so the grant scheme makes a permanent cut in the tonnage of the fleet.
	The scheme is targeted at the part of the fleet that catches cod. It is part of our strategy to reduce the pressure of fishing on the cod stocks in the North Sea and the west of Scotland. The EU has established recovery measures for those stocks, which this year include limits on the amount of time that fishing boats can spend at sea. By taking out some boats altogether, it is possible to give the remaining boats more time to spend at sea, so the grant scheme helps to keep the rest of the fleet more profitable by enabling it to fish more than would otherwise be allowed.
	This scheme applies to England. The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland run their own schemes, which are designed to have a parallel effect to ours. The scheme has needed to have approval from the European Commission under the EU state aid rules. We asked the Commission for authority to pay more grant to individual vessels than its standard maximum rates, to ensure that we could provide a suitable incentive for fishermen. The Commission did not agree to that, so there are ceilings on the rates that can be paid. The maximum rate depends on the age and size of the vessel. Under the English scheme, we had 63 applications, though many wanted a rate of payment higher than the EU ceiling and have since withdrawn from the scheme. So far, 12 have accepted our offers of payment under the scheme, and we await the decisions of 21 more.
	We originally announced that we would pay £5 million in grant under the scheme in England, but, in the light of the bids that have been made, I have made it clear that we will pay more, if necessary, to meet the target for reduction. We will approve payment to all those who have applied, if the withdrawal of the vessel will make a significant contribution to reducing fishing for cod in the North Sea and the west of Scotland.
	As I said, the scheme is part of our strategy to restore fish stocks in the North Sea and west of Scotland. We are entering the period leading up to the December European Council of Ministers meeting, when decisions on future stocks management will be taken. We will consider the latest scientific advice on the stocks and will consult the fishing industry on the way forward. We will, of course, talk to other member states and the Commission.
	This is an important time for our fisheries. I commend the scheme to the House.
	Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 16th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the statutory instrument and outlining the process for applications, their approval and eligibility, and the method of decommissioning under the grant system. However, before I ask the Minister some direct questions, I remind her—I am sure that she needs no reminding—that it is less than a month since we debated the Select Committee's report on progress on the common fisheries policy. The Minister and other noble Lords will remember that we had an extremely depressing three hours. The progress made was very small, and speakers in all parts of the House bemoaned the lack of progress made in the conservation of fish stocks, particularly, as the Minister said again today, cod and, on that occasion, haddock.
	The Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 2003 will result in the scrapping of some English vessels. The noble Baroness rightly said that the scheme applied only to English vessels. No new licences will be awarded, and the scheme will make a permanent cut in the tonnage of the fleet of English vessels. Do other EU countries use exactly the same scheme? In the past, some countries have had decommissioning schemes but have allowed that money to be used to improve other fishing vessels, often creating even more fishing capacity than before.
	The noble Baroness will remember that my noble friend Lady Wilcox spoke about her great concern at the way in which fishing authorities dealt with controls on their particular fishing practices. As the noble Baroness said, 63 applications were made originally. But I am confused because while she said that only 12 vessels have accepted the offers of grant, in the Commons, Ben Bradshaw said that the number of acceptances is 16. Perhaps the Minister could clarify why the number has decreased by four in the past two days. Responses are awaited from a further 16 vessels.
	I also understand that the Government originally put aside £5 million in grant, but in another place Ben Bradshaw made it clear that the Government would pay more, if necessary. From where is the original allocated £5 million coming? Is it new money? Would additional money come from the same source or is it EU money which requires matched Treasury funding?
	I turn now to the detail of the order. Paragraph 4(4), entitled, "Applications" states:
	"The Secretary of State shall publish in such manner as she considers appropriate".
	I hope that it will not be published just on the web, but also in the written word. It is not specified, so perhaps that can be clarified.
	Paragraph 5(2)(a), entitled, "Consideration of applications", states that bids are to be,
	"made in respect of a vessel which is less than 10 years old".
	But on 5th November, in Committee, the Minister said:
	"There is no discrimination based on, or targeting relevant to, the age of vessels".—[Official Report, Commons Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation; 5/11/03; col. 16.]
	It may be my misunderstanding or misreading, but, again, I should be grateful for clarification. Obviously, the two statements do not add up.
	Paragraph 5(5) states:
	"The Secretary of State shall select for approval the highest ranking application on the reserve list".
	Will the Minister explain that? In the light of the Government's intention to pay more, if necessary, does that, in line with the statutory instrument, become invalid?
	Paragraph 8(1), entitled, "Decommissioning of the vessel", refers to:
	"At least two weeks prior to the decommission".
	Is the Minister confident that two weeks is sufficient time in which to expect the application to reach the Secretary of State? Recently we experienced a postal strike; we all know that mail is not coming through very quickly. Why was two weeks chosen? That is a fairly tight turnaround if there are any difficulties in the wider world.
	As regards paragraph 12(1), entitled, "Method of payment", is it right that payments may be made,
	"by such instalments at such intervals or times"?
	Is that normal? It seems unfair that people who are decommissioning their vessels should have to wait for payment, which may be made in dribs and drabs. I do not understand that and seek clarification.
	Paragraph 14(3) refers to entry to a "dwelling house". The Minister may reflect that in the many debates on legislation going through this House—particularly on the Countryside and Rights of Way Act and animal health legislation—the power to go into a person's dwelling house has not normally been included. Why does this statutory instrument not follow the same line as previous legislation? Is this an extension of normal entry powers? It seems slightly confusing.
	I have two further brief points. As regards paragraph 15(4)(b), is that supposed to be the appeals system? There does not seem to be an appeals system built into this statutory instrument. If so, presumably the appeals system for fishing vessel owners does not have an independent authority. That may be deliberate, but I could not determine it.
	Finally, paragraph 16(1), entitled "Interest", refers to,
	"recover interest on that amount on a daily basis at a rate of 1 per cent above LIBOR".
	Will that also apply to any late payments made by the Government? Otherwise, I support the statutory instrument.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, in addressing the statutory instrument, the noble Baroness has asked some very pertinent questions. I shall be interested to hear the answers. Page 5, paragraph 5(4)(a) of the statutory instrument refers to,
	"the benefit likely to be derived from, and value for money represented by, the bid".
	How is that determined? What is the interpretation?
	I declare that I am a member of the House of Lords European Union Committee D, which produced the report on the common fisheries policy debated about three weeks ago. I understand that the statutory instrument is related to decommissioning of boats in England specifically. It beholds me to quote from the report. Paragraph 31 states:
	"One of the most fundamental and enduring problems of the Common Fisheries Policy has been the failure to tackle chronic overcapacity of the EU fleet".
	Clearly, that is being tackled in the United Kingdom by the introduction of the statutory instrument.
	After the Council of Ministers met about this, our conclusion was that:
	"Another opportunity to legislate for a serious downsizing of the European fleet has been missed. We urge the Government to press the fundamental need for capacity reduction, as well as effective measures to deal with 'technology creep', in future negotiations over recovery and management plans".
	I am particularly concerned about technology creep, which it is right to bring out into the open. There are still EU grants for new boats, which will be granted throughout 2004 and will not terminate until the end of that year. At the same time, we will be having grants to decommission boats. That is the law of the jungle.
	I am a great supporter of the European Union, but that kind of legislation and agreement brings it into disrepute. Indeed, this is an extraordinary situation. What are the Minister's views? There is a fair reduction all round in all of the maritime nations of the Community. What support will be available for coastal fishing communities in England? In Scotland, provision is being made by the Scottish Executive.
	In Cornwall, I know that there is great concern about objective 1 money, which is provided for development in Cornwall because its GDP is particularly low. Is any of that money being siphoned off into the fund for the decommissioning of boats? I hope that that is not the case and that the noble Baroness is able to reassure us on that point.
	It is clear that the fishing-out of stocks is not in the interests of our fishing communities. There needs to be greater acceleration and will by the whole of the European Community. In particular, those countries which tend to ignore this kind of legislation must grasp the nettle in the interests of us conserving our fish stocks so that we actually have some fish for which to fish.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I wish to follow the contributions made by the two noble Lords on this side of the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. We are all well aware that fishing is a very hard-pressed industry. The total allowable catch has been set far too high, the gear has improved and vessels are now much larger. One appreciates that for far too long a great deal of over-fishing has been going on in European waters. As a former fisheries Minister, I endured many all-night sittings in Brussels trying to sort it out; I know just how difficult that is to do.
	The order presents good news and bad news. It is good news that the Government have brought forward this decommissioning scheme, but it is bad news that we have to do it at all. On balance, we must go along with the scheme, but I hope that the Government fisheries Ministers will do all they can to try to improve the situation in the months and years ahead. As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, pointed out, the fishing ports around our coasts are now becoming totally redundant, facing huge job losses and suffering from a general depression in an industry that flourished not so many years ago.
	The noble Baroness gave some figures with regard to applications for decommissioning and those that have been accepted. I wish to ask about two further points: first, how long does it take to come to a decision from receipt of an application? Secondly, can she give us an approximated average figure for what the owner of a decommissioned vessel is receiving? The noble Baroness said that 12 applications have been dealt with so far, although others have mentioned the figure of 16. If she divides that figure into the amount of money already spent, we shall have an average figure. Noble Lords would like to know the sum, because it must be balanced against the long-term income and work of a fisherman and his crew, and what is to happen when the boat comes out of use.
	I repeat a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. Can the Minister explain where the money is coming from? Is it all European Union money, or is it in part or in total from the UK Treasury? Can the noble Baroness also give further details on the decisions reached about the break-up of the vessels? It is an awful tragedy to take a good, sea-going boat and then break it up. What is to happen to the salvage? Who will take the gear, engines and so forth, all of which could be used again? Is the owner to retain the right to sell the salvage after break-up?
	Having read this extremely detailed order, I believe it is most important to ensure that the bureaucracy and red tape surrounding the entire scheme is reduced as much as possible. I hope that the noble Baroness can tell us that the process from application for decommissioning to acceptance is completed in the shortest period of time and that no great problems are encountered. Obviously it is important that all eligible vessels are brought into the scheme, and I am glad that the Government have retained the escape clause that will allow a few boats to go to museums and other forms of preservation. These vessels are beautiful and it causes great sadness to see them go.
	The most vital point to come out of this debate is the fact that the fishing industry is in such a serious plight. We hope that fish stocks will improve and that the industry itself can face a more certain future, not only for fishermen, but also for consumers.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the House. I have been given the updated figures to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred, although the position has changed again since this update. Some 20 vessels have now accepted our offers of grant and we await responses from a further 12, possibly by this time next week. Were I to use these figures then, I would again be out of date. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, also asked for the most recent statistics.
	In response to the questions put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, 50 per cent of the funds will be met by the European Union and all vessels, whether they are over or under 10 years old, have been included. We are looking to remove effort as soon as possible, but I accept the point made by the noble Baroness about having to be flexible in the light of the postal strike. Payments will be made as soon as possible after decommissioning has taken place. Further, while there is no independent statutory authority, if vessel owners were to express concerns and be unhappy with the position, we would be happy to consider the issue again.
	Owners may do what they like with their vessels once they have been scrapped, subject of course to environmental considerations. I say that in answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Monro. We share his enthusiasm for retaining the museum option for the reasons he gave in his remarks.
	Boats are averaging around £1,000 per vessel capacity unit, but it is very difficult to calculate the averages. Not all vessels are equal and therefore any average figures could be misleading simply on the grounds that not all fishing vessels are in the same position when it comes to the contribution they would make to the overall effort. Value for money is perceived in those terms as a part of the equation.
	All vessels capable of catching cod in the North Sea and off the west coast of Scotland are subject to the same restrictions on days, not only the vessels of the UK.
	There were two rounds of applications and limits on maximum payments set because the Commission was not content that we should pay more than the standard EU grant limits for scrapping vessels. We had expected that we could pay more because the Commission had allowed for that in a previous scheme. Once we were aware of the position, we realised that we had to go back to the applicants to let them know. The basis, as I have said, for selecting the best-value applications to approve the grant is the level of the bid and the amount of fishing time spent on cod fishing in the reference period.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, about the need to provide socio-economic help for fishing communities. Funds are available at the regional level to tackle local issues and the regional development agencies are alert to the necessity to identify needs. The finance available to adjust fleet size, promote a viable fishing industry and restore stocks in 2001–02 was £36 million, rising up to £50 million this year. As noble Lords have recognised, we are prepared to look at the finance again in the light of experience.
	All noble Lords taking part in this debate were present and took part in the discussions on the excellent report to which the noble Baroness referred. Through the Strategy Unit we are undertaking studies to identify the long-term way forward for the fishing industry. The consultation I referred to earlier is an important part of that process. We support better contact between the industry and the scientists and this year have set aside almost £1 million for precisely that purpose. We have given top priority to achieving a better balance between fishing capacity and fish stocks through permanent adjustment.
	I am conscious that certain other questions were put to me to which at this stage I do not have the accurate and detailed answers. I will write to all noble Lords who have taken part and provide those detailed responses—such as, for example, to the question put by the noble Baroness about rates of interest on both payments and late payments.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Selsdon: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their latest proposals for constitutional reform would enhance the membership of the House of Lords.
	My Lords, I am most grateful to the House for allowing time for this Question. I hoped that it would be tabled for a Friday, with a relatively small number of noble Lords present, in order that we might set aside all private interests, prejudices and partial affections, so that we might, without emotion, stick to the Question which asks whether or not the proposals of the Government will enhance the membership of the House.
	However, I find it difficult not to have some partial affection. I joined your Lordships' House by accident of birth in 1963, at the age of 25. I hardly knew anybody; when I came in, nobody said hello to me. I found I had to change my name, which I rather regretted—I ended up being Selsdon of Croydon instead of the proper Scot I am. I came to sit on these Benches because these were the temporal Benches and it said that this was the Barons' Bench and that the Earls sat in the front.
	Over that period of time, amazing things happened to me. I worked in a research company, and one of our assignments was to do the study for the Labour Party on the 1968 reform. That reform simply proposed that the hereditary principle should no longer exist to give a right for a seat in the Lords and that no party should have a permanent majority.
	At that time, an excellent White Paper was prepared by the Government which was voted on in this House with a majority of 197. It went to the Commons, where it had a majority of 111. At that early age, I hoped and begged that there would be a reform, because I believed passionately that this House should be wholly elected in order to be democratic.
	That is a feeling I had even when we came to the 1999 reform. In the debates that we had then, I introduced an amendment of which I was rather proud, which had been perfectly and beautifully drafted, and which contained within it an amendment permitting the right to retire. When I moved that amendment, it came about that my colleagues on this side of the House tried to encourage me not to push it any further. Noble Lords on the Cross Benches also encouraged me not to push it any further. Indeed, Lord Longford asked me what on earth I was doing promoting Labour Party policy, because it was in truth the Labour Party's Bill of 1968. Then I found to my surprise that there was nothing more one could do about it—there was a sort of fix that went on, to which we will come later.
	In looking at the enhancement of the House, I looked at the three great estates of Church, Law and Parliament. My Lords, I do not want the Lord Chancellor to go. In the whole structure of our society, law is an important part of this House. There are so many Law Lords here, and a total of 100 lawyers, if you include them all together, a very significant proportion of the House. We have here the highest paid official in the land. He is paid twice as much as a Solicitor-General and is well worth it. He is the one who grants us our Writs. He has a power, authority and influence way over that which he put in the consultation paper which, like all modern government consultation papers, is thick, widely spaced and thin.
	When I came to your Lordships' House, I wanted to know what the Lord Chancellor did, and I asked around. It took some time before an excellent report on the Lord Chancellor was prepared by David Beamish and others—most of the Clerks joined the same time as I did. He was, as I learned, the most important citizen in the land after the Royal Family and the Archbishop of Canterbury. He fitted between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York, and then came the Prime Minister. Today the Lord Chancellor is sandwiched between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York. I do not think we should let him go willingly. He may, however, shoot himself in the foot. Your Lordships will be aware that the first gun licence ever introduced was at the time of crossbows—I think it was in 1512. When you wind up a crossbow, you normally put it down, and the phrase "to shoot yourself in the foot" comes from when someone failed to make sure that the trigger was protected.
	Within the law, we come to the great estate of Parliament. Your Lordships will know that in this House we have inherited some of the best from the other place. Fading, worn out and aged they may be, but there are 146 of them, and over 60 per cent have held Cabinet or junior ministerial posts. They are the dominant factor in this House. Then we move on to the honours and the 188 Privy Counsellors who are here. I wanted to know what a Privy Counsellor did, and I had to ask. When we came to the phrase "binding in honour Privy Counsellor to Privy Counsellor", I did a little more research.
	Those are honourable men, and then we come to the question of honours. How do we determine how many public servants there are and have been in the House? You look at honours list and find, to your surprise, that there are around 150 former civil servants, with these gongs, as they are called—CMG is for "Call me God" and KCMG for "Kindly call me God". They are independent and sit on the independent Benches.
	Then we come to the Church. Sitting in the House on the Bishops' Benches are those with flocks of 31 million, with 7,672 parishes and many more churches, spread widely throughout the country.
	On whether we are regionally represented, the former constituencies of the former Members of the House of Commons spread right throughout the land and are fantastic. Along with them there are those I thought were academics because my spreadsheet squeezed up and when I saw the initials "DL" I thought they stood for D.Litt. These are the Deputy Lieutenants, however—there are 83 of them, with territories throughout the country. Put that lot together with the Bishops' patches and you have regional representation beyond anything and apart from the individuals who may not be in that happy gang.
	As time went by, I kept the original research which we did for free for the Labour Party and constantly updated it. When I saw the latest report on constitutional reform, it reminded me of—well, statistics, or, rather, lies, damned lies and statistics. The problem was that there were not any statistics in it. I would not say it was full of damned lies but prejudice had not been set aside, nor, perhaps, had private interests. I used sometimes to produce reports for myself, which I called, "Towards a Peerless Future". I have a new one, and after we have heard the Government's proposals, I would be happy to share it with your Lordships. It makes fascinating reading.
	There is a sadness about the ageing and the agelessness of the House. In a way, many of the older Members—18 are between 90 and 100, and 37 are between 85 and 90—make excellent contributions. The age pattern is such that the average age has risen to 67.8. But there is a new mood in the House on the Bishops' Benches. They have an average age of under 60, which is most encouraging. They are young and forthright; we always used to think of them as old and distinguished, but they are pretty trendy these days.
	Out of this document I can produce all sorts of fun figures, but I come now to the sadness of it all—the prejudice. The House comprised 590 Members in 1900 and jacked itself up. After the 1999 Act, two things happened. We had some elected Peers. To my surprise, perhaps reluctance, and then pleasure, I was one of them. We were elected and accounted at that time for 14 per cent of the House, with some 86 per cent being appointed.
	As time went on, our share—the elected side—fell to 13.5 per cent and the other numbers went up. Why can we not say that we are who we are and how we came here does not matter? We could all tear ourselves apart at the seams and say that method of entry, donations to parties and goodness knows what were reasons. But the House is what it is; I believe it is a good and great House. I believe it has considerable potential for development with itself. There is, of course, natural death. Some 74 Members have died over the past two to three years and the average age is rising; the older generation will know that for every year they live, they have more than one year of life expectancy to go.
	Unfortunately, I take issue with some of things that have been said in this House about whether or not we have stage three reform. I would like to have a reform. I accept now that the quality and membership of the House is such that it would be wrong to change it—it would be wrong to remove and better to add. I have worked in the world of finance, where your word was your bond and you shook hands. In some cases, when you did a horse deal and spat on your hands, you were effectively sealing an agreement, and the punishment for breaking that agreement was death. I believe that it still is, although the death penalty no longer exists.
	I would like to place on the record—and I do this with apologies—why I did not vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I preferred my own. I did not vote for the amendment because I was slightly suspicious about government—but then I was reassured, because on 30th March 1999 the then Lord Chancellor said that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill,
	"would provide for the interim retention of one in 10 of the hereditary Peers, 75 out of the existing 750, plus 15 hereditary office-holders, until the second stage of House of Lords reform has taken place. The amendment reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent".
	He went on to say:
	"Although I know as well as anyone the honesty and firmness of our intention, I was not offended by those who claimed to perceive a risk that the removal of the hereditaries might prove to be the only reform to take place".
	He continued:
	"First, a compromise in these terms would guarantee that stage two would take place . . . But the 10 per cent. will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place".—[Official Report, 30/3/99; col. 207.]
	I could share more information with the House. I am grateful for being given the time. I look forward so much to what now follows.

Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I agree with much of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. I warmly congratulate him on giving us this opportunity to discuss an important question. Some of your Lordships, particularly those who have been in the other place, will remember our old friend Frank Haynes, of Ashfield. I used to keep a list of speeches that had pleased me during my time in the Speaker's Chair. On one occasion I remember Frank Haynes pronouncing the great truth during a debate on new technology: "Mr Speaker, I am all in favour of progress as long as it doesn't mean change".
	I am in favour of progress and I believe in change. I fought my first election in 1964 on the slogan "no choice but change". In relation to this debate we have some choice and I shall enlarge on that. As the House knows, I was involved, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, has said, in the 1999 negotiations. I shall listen with interest to the comments of other noble Lords on this subject—notably those of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who knows that I was not part of what has come to be known as the "Cranborne amendment", which did not form part of the so-called "Weatherill amendment" at that time. The "Cranborne amendment" is what is causing us trouble today. I think that the system of "fastest losers" would have done us well for quite a few years and given us time.
	Regarding today's debate, I shall express some thoughts on another change which is not welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon—the question of the future of the Lord Chancellor. I gave evidence to the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I wish to express a few thoughts on the future of the Speaker of the House of Lords. He or she should be chosen or elected by the whole House, not appointed by the Government. He or she should give up party politics for life so as to be totally impartial and independent. He should be the public face of your Lordships' House, representing us on all important occasions. However, whenever he appears with the Speaker of the other place, the Speaker of the elected House of Commons should always take precedence. We would need modest changes to the way in which the Commons Speaker is ultimately elected. He comes to stand at the Bar, and in the past has asked the Lord Chancellor to consult Her Majesty over whether she agrees to the Commons' choice. That could no longer be the case, because that would indicate that this House was more important than the other place.
	Above all, I would want us to keep up our old traditions of self-regulation. I hope that whatever happens, if we have a Speaker here we should not disfigure our proceedings by points of order, nearly all of which would be bogus. We should avoid that sort of thing. In the same way the Leader of the House or whoever is on the Government Front Bench should continue to indicate which Benches should speak next. Let us keep our old traditions of courtesy and consideration. The Speaker of the House of Lords should have an opportunity to grant Private Notice Questions, which are rare in this House. Where there are matters of great importance, Members of the House may ask for a Private Notice Question, and the decision on whether to grant it should be that of the Speaker not the Government.
	There is also the question of uniform. I hope that our Lord Chancellor will continue to wear a uniform and a wig. Uniform is important because it draws attention to an office, not an individual. The Speaker should be anonymous. I used to explain to young visitors to Speaker's House in my day that I was merely the conductor of a national orchestra. The Government "violins" wanted to play their tune, as did the Opposition "violins". The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will remember "the drums" below the gangway, and those, who in the Speaker's jargon, "did not bother us often", took out their triangle and went "ping"! All of that was part of the national orchestra, and the object was to ensure that the audience—the electorate—had an opportunity to decide whether they liked the symphony, and whether they would wish to hear it all over again at a general election, or hear another tune or even have a bit of each—a coalition government.
	By general consent in recent years Parliament has been failing in its duty to hold the Government to account. However, I pay tribute to my colleagues down the corridor in the other place. There is no country in the world where people are represented more personally than they are in the House of Commons. At the last count, when I asked the postmaster how many letters came in to the Palace of Westminster each day, I was told that the figure was 40,000—probably more now because that was six months ago. A large number of them are cases from so-called "surgeries" in our constituencies—most have little to do with Parliament. Opening 40,000 letters a day effectively means that Members of Parliament cannot be in the Chamber as well as in their offices.
	I would like to do something about the cases coming from constituencies. I remember when I was particularly busy one day in my constituency and one of my constituents arrived and asked if I could obtain for him a council house. I had to explain that that was not really my responsibility. He said, "What do you mean?". I answered, "Very briefly, if it was called parliamentary housing I would be in business. As it is called council housing, it is a matter for the council and this lady next to me is a councillor. Would you mind talking to her about it? I'm sure she will do what she can to help you.". He poked me in the chest and said, "Look here, mate, you're paid to do it". The truth is that Members go to the constituencies to canvass for problems. Those are generally the responsibility of local councillors, who do an extremely good job. It is they who should receive the credit if they succeed—not those in the other place.
	I do not think that we can do much about constituency correspondence. We shall not return to the days in 1964 when I first entered the other place. My neighbour in Streatham was Duncan Sandys, who used to say openly that he was sent to represent Streatham in Westminster, and not Westminster in Streatham. He went to Streatham on average about once a year. Those days are long past and rightly so. However, I think that your Lordships' House must continue to play a crucial part in holding the Government to account in the role that we undertake in the scrutiny of legislation and through our general debates on topical subjects.
	There is one other innovation that we might introduce with a new Speaker of the House of Lords: the ability to grant Standing Order 24 debates—I think that that is what they are called—on urgent matters that have not been exposed. In the other place the Speaker can receive a request from a Back-Bencher, and it is his responsibility to decide whether a debate should be granted. Such a debate takes precedence over the Government's business for the day and lasts, I think, for three hours. It is a very important opportunity for a Back-Bencher to raise an important matter that should have urgent consideration.
	Time does not allow for further thoughts on this. However, in my judgment, this will prove to have been a very important debate. I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, on giving us an opportunity on a Friday to discuss these issues. Noble Lords who have spoken, and those who are about to participate, are heavyweights in parliamentary terms. I am well aware that it is an old quip that if you wish to keep a secret, you should make a speech about it in Parliament. I hope that that will not be the fate of this important contribution to the future of your Lordships' House and our role in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. Over many years and in a number of guises, certainly throughout my political life, we have worked together in all sorts of different ways. I have learnt that when he says something it is worth considering. Some of his comments today are worth considering, although my conclusions might be slightly different. Nevertheless, he raised serious points which I am sure we will have to consider as reform of the House of Lords develops.
	I say to my noble friend Lord Selsdon that I greatly enjoyed his speech and that I have considerable sympathy with some of his concerns. However, the point that I took from his speech was that, whatever we finally do and however we ultimately reform the House of Lords, we must recognise that we are handling an institution with a great tradition that has served this nation extremely well over centuries. Therefore, we want to be very careful that we get it right.
	While I am in a mood for expressing sympathy for people, I should say that I have considerable sympathy for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If anyone has a capacity for drawing short straws, I think that the noble and learned Lord is probably the champion of the lot.
	In my view, reform of the House of Lords is in a mess. In the final paragraph of the report of the Royal Commission which I had the honour to chair, we more or less forecast that that was a considerable possibility. We said:
	"But if interested parties choose to hold out for what they would ideally like, the opportunity may pass for another generation, maybe another century".
	I have expressed rather stronger views than that polite phrase from the Royal Commission. It has been clear to me from the beginning of this process that no one was going to get everything that they wanted. Unless there was a degree of compromise between all the different interests, the matter was likely to end up in the sand.
	In my view, only a small amount of compromise is necessary to make progress. Quite a lot of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor announced last September represented progress. The Royal Commission, in our report, proposed a statute-based Appointments Commission. Although doubts remain, I think that it would be okay to allocate seats on a political basis, having regard to the outcome of the previous general election. However, that would have to be done fairly. As the Government have not accepted our recommendation for a 15-year term for appointed Members, such an arrangement is much more difficult.
	I believe that the Government are correct that 600 is about the right size for a part-time House. However, they are wrong to put a formal cap on it. It is much better to get the proportions right, at about that figure, than to stick absolutely rigidly to 600. The Government are also right to accept the Royal Commission's view about a proper balance of gender, age, ethnicity, faith and disability.
	However, I think that the Government are wrong in a number of their proposals. I believe that it would be a great mistake to allow Peers to retire and go to the Commons. I think that that would do untold harm to the House of Lords. I am sure that this place would become a staging post for young, ambitious politicians trying to get up the political ladder. We simply do not want that in a revising House.
	Retirement from the service of the House—as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has recommended—is fine. However, renouncing one's peerage would be a nonsense and counterproductive. If the noble and learned Lord has any doubts about that, I suggest that he discuss them with some of his noble friends. I think that the Government, in their own interests, would be wise to offer a life peerage to all the remaining hereditary Peers who want one. On that basis, the hereditary system in the House of Lords will end and the rather silly by-elections will cease.
	Having said all that, I just wonder whether the Government might not be wise to look again at our Royal Commission report and our suggestions on how the House could find a better way of securing a voice for the countries and regions of the United Kingdom. Although we called them elected Members in our report, and that is of course correct, it was a bit of an overstatement in that we recommended that they should be effectively appointed by the people. That would have been a more accurate definition. We could start with a very small number, a 15-year term and no possibility of re-election. I think that that is worth looking at again.
	After all, the number of life peerages started in a very small way in this House and gradually increased. After about 50 years, a life peerage has become a universally accepted basis for membership. The issue will not go away. I am not one of the most enthusiastic supporters of an elected House. However, I believe that it is better to make small changes slowly over time than to risk a wholesale upheaval in future that could leave us with a second Chamber that is simply not able to do its job and act as a revising Chamber.
	In asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to have a little look at what I suggested in our report, I should perhaps finish by reminding him that the Labour Party included the same suggestions in its manifesto at the last general election.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for this opportune debate. As it is a low-key, thoughtful and good-humoured debate, I hope that we may have a chance to influence the Government before their proposals are set in concrete. I should like to make three points, only the first of which I think would come under the heading of private interests, prejudices and partial affections in that it does touch on the role of Bishops.
	I had the great honour and pleasure of serving under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, as a member of the Royal Commission. As he said, we very much welcomed the idea of putting the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis. In the document, Constitutional reform: next steps for the House of Lords, the Government propose eight, or possibly nine, commissioners, some of them to be appointed by political parties and others to be independent members. When the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform was set up, there were no Bishops on it even though at that time it was anticipated that it might get round to discussing the role of the Lords Spiritual in this House. That seemed to some people rather odd. Our 26 Members try to play as full a part as we can in the life of the House commensurate with a wide range of other responsibilities. I leave the matter there, but it seemed rather odd.
	The Appointments Commission has been charged specifically with looking at other faith representation in your Lordships' House. That commission will need at least one person on it who understands the religious scene. It is a complex scene. That person need not be a Bishop. I leave that thought with the House but a person will be needed—whoever it is—who understands the religious scene.
	I now wish to make my two major points. Paragraph 20 of the Government's Paper, Constitutional reform: next steps for the House of Lords, uses the words "refresh the membership". Like many noble Lords I find plenty of opportunities in the House to refresh myself but presumably the document refers to new members. In the Army between the two world wars promotion occurred on the basis of what was called "dead man's shoes". At the moment, particularly if we are looking for a relatively fixed number in the House, there are very few opportunities for new Members to enter the House. Due to healthy living conditions in your Lordships' House, noble Lords live to a good old age, but not—despite the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, about the average age of Bishops—as long as the clergy, who live longer than anyone else. Nevertheless, your Lordships live to a good age. That means that under the principle of dead man's shoes there are very few opportunities for new members to come into the House.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, the Royal Commission recommended that people should serve for 15 years with a possibility of further service up to 15 years. We made that recommendation on the basis that we have already sundered the link between membership of this House and the peerage. It is possible to be a hereditary Peer and not to be a Member of the House. That link has already been broken.
	We already have in the House noble Lords who are here just for a period—the Bishops. The late Lord Hailsham talked about Bishops blowing in, blowing off and blowing out. I hope that is not entirely true but we eventually blow out in that we have to go when we retire from our Bishopric.
	Recommendation 75 of the Royal Commission's report states:
	"Members of the reformed second chamber should be able to retire",
	and Recommendation 104 of the Royal Commission's report states that the Life Peerages Act 1958 should be amended in order to allow that.
	Paragraph 20 of Constitutional reform: next steps for the House of Lords states that fixed terms—which the Royal Commission was strongly in favour of— are difficult to introduce and suggests that the Government intend to keep the link with the peerage and lifelong membership of the House of Lords, at least so far as life Peers are concerned.
	Paragraph 21 of Constitutional reform allows for the possibility of people renouncing their titles. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, commented on that. Let us suppose that a person does not want to renounce his title—it is a distinguished honour—but has reached the point in his life when he feels that he has no serious contribution to make to the House and that he should make way for someone else. What mechanisms will be put in place—particularly if the aim is to reduce the membership of the House to 600—to allow a person to retain his title but to bow out of this House with dignity and grace? Would it be possible to have a category of permanent leave of absence? A person may have served here for a long time and considers that he has made his contribution but his health may be failing and he is rarely able to attend. Perhaps such a person ought to be able to apply for permanent leave of absence. I suggest that the figure for the membership of the House should not include those people. At present a tiny number of noble Lords ask for leave of absence, but there could be a big category comprising Peers asking for permanent leave of absence. I suggest that for all practical purposes that category should not be included in the figure for membership of the House.
	We could perhaps grant a right of appeal to reverse the decision regarding permanent leave of absence. Someone aged about 80 or 89 may consider that he has done enough and decide to retire. However, he may suddenly get a new lease of life, feel rejuvenated and discover a whole range of new interests. I suggest that such a person could apply to the Appointments Commission to have the original decision reversed. That might give people confidence that if they applied for permanent leave of absence they could, in extreme circumstances, have that decision reversed. I am all in favour of such confidence-building measures. But on a more serious note, what mechanisms will the Government put in place to enable fresh life to come into the House?
	Finally, I turn to the Appointments Commission. It was set up on a statutory basis, which we welcome. However, under the Government's proposals, the commission's role is confined almost solely to Cross-Benchers. The Royal Commission recommended strongly that it should have a role in relation to political appointments as well. We were particularly concerned about political dissidents in the House of Commons. A party leader might put forward a list of people which does not contain someone who has been a thorn in the flesh of his party, but whom the House of Lords would very much welcome into its membership. How would such a person enter the House of Lords?
	Looking at the matter more widely, the Royal Commission recommended that the House as a whole needed to be broadly representative, that it needed to have a gender balance and a fair representation of minority ethnic groups. However, in the Government's paper, the role of the Appointments Commission is to ensure that kind of balance through the Cross-Benchers, but it has virtually no role in relation to political appointments. A similar point can be made in relation to Royal Commission Recommendation 93. We recommended elections on a regional basis, beginning, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, with a very small percentage of elected members. That would ensure that there were some real regional members.
	The amazing fact is that one or two of my fellow Bishops have remarked that they are in some instances the only Member of this House from their region, or there may have been one other at the time of the hereditary Peers. Some regions are severely underrepresented in this House. Therefore, it seems to me essential that in the House of the future—if we are not to have elections on a regional basis—we must have some way of ensuring that the political appointments reflect the regions as well as gender balance and other considerations.
	The Appointments Commission should have some serious role and some powers in relation to political appointments. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, shakes his head. We have already discussed this matter and he believes strongly that political appointments should be in the hands of political leaders. I am partially persuaded by his point, but that does not mean to say that the Appointments Commission should have no power in relation to that. If we do not want to give it power to send the list back for reconsideration on the grounds that it is not representative—that would be one way of doing it—the other way might be to give the commission a monitoring role in relation to all appointments. We could also enable it to have a public report once a year in which it specifically commented on whether the political appointments were broadly representative of the House.
	I very much hope that the Government might take some of those considerations into account.

Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for tabling the Question. It gives me the opportunity of saying a few words about some of the consequences of transferring the judicial work of the House to a new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. In dealing with that matter, I hope that I am not straying outside the intended parameters of the Question.
	The consultation paper dealing with this particular proposed reform poses 23 questions. I am concerned with only one of those questions, number seven, which asks in effect, "What about retired Law Lords?"—that is to say judges who have ceased to be members of the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and are not already Lords of Parliament. Are they to become Members of the House of Lords, or are they to be put out to grass? Are the services which they can offer to the House of value? Will they enhance the membership?
	The consultation paper suggests no answer to question seven. My answer is to let a retiring Law Lord be an ex officio Member of this House if willing to become a full working Member. In expressing that view I must tread carefully, because I am obviously parti pris and open to all manner of charges of bias and self-interest. I express the view because I believe that there are areas in which a retired Law Lord is able to give a useful contribution to the work of the House without becoming involved in any political or controversial issues.
	The first area which I have in mind is the chairmanship of Select Committees. I have no ready means of ascertaining the track record of other retired Law Lords, but I myself have been employed as chairman of nine Select Committees. I have no doubt that other retired Law Lords can say much the same. The Committee of Selection will know better than I whether it would be useful to retain a pool of retired Law Lords for that type of work.
	The second area in which retired Law Lords can be helpful, again without being involved in political or controversial issues, is spotting clauses in Bills that need redrafting in order to put them in a fit state for inclusion in an Act of Parliament. I have in the past called such clauses drafting quagmires. The best example that I have encountered of a drafting quagmire occurred in the National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill 1997. I shall explain it quite briefly.
	Under the Bill, an NHS trust was permitted to make,
	"an externally financed development agreement".
	The agreement had to be certified as such by the Secretary of State. To receive such a certificate, the agreement had to meet the conditions laid down in subsection (3). There then followed this remarkable subsection:
	"Nothing in this section affects the validity of any agreement made by a NHS Trust if the agreement has not been certified under this section, but would have been an externally financed development agreement for the purposes of this section if it had been so certified".
	What could that mean? We had already been told that an agreement was,
	"an externally financed development agreement",
	if certified as such by the Secretary of State.
	That drafting quagmire was spotted in time. An appropriate amendment was made, and the intended meaning was expressed in terms so simple that noble Lords may find it difficult to see how the complication of the subsection ever found its way into the Bill. The amendment expressed the meaning by stating:
	"The fact that an agreement made by a NHS Trust has not been certified under this section does not affect its validity".
	A retired Law Lord, by his training as a barrister and experience as a judge, is well equipped to detect bad drafting before a Bill becomes law. The question in that area is whether a retired Law Lord can make a useful contribution to the form in which Acts of Parliament reach the public. More generally, are retired Law Lords worth while? In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, does their presence enhance the membership of this House?
	As it is a Friday afternoon, I shall close with a teasing question for the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, which he will unfortunately not have the opportunity to answer as he has no right of reply. I was a little puzzled by his use of "enhance". I was not absolutely certain what was meant. I consulted my Concise Oxford English Dictionary, but that did not help me. I next turned to Fowler's Modern English Usage, which described "enhance" as,
	"a dangerous word for the unwary".
	It then told me that its use in a personal sense, and so applying to membership of this House and other matters, was "long obsolete".

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for giving us our first opportunity to debate the Government's proposals for what they choose to call "reform", apart from a short debate on the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the publication of his consultation paper last September. Indeed, it is the only opportunity that we will have to debate the proposals before the end of the present Session, although we are likely to have a great many opportunities in the next Session if, as we expect, we see a Bill to give effect to them.
	The Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, was whether the proposals would enhance the membership of your Lordships' House. I would put the Question slightly differently: will they enable the Members of your Lordships' House to enhance the performance of the House?
	This House is described as a revising Chamber. I accept that as a definition. We are not rivals to the House of Commons. We are bound, for example, by the Salisbury convention, and we should not, save in exceptional circumstances, wreck or reject government Bills, even if they are not in the manifesto. But "revising" does not mean only tidying up and correcting the kind of defects to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, referred so entertainingly; it may also include substantial, and sometimes contentious, revision.
	We believe that only a democratically elected second Chamber would have the strength and legitimacy to carry out the proper role of your Lordships' House to its full effect. I consider your Lordships' House already to be more independent since the departure of most of the hereditary Members in 1999. We are now more willing to exercise our revising power. When the majority of Members were hereditary, this House was all too conscious of the weakness of its mandate to challenge the Government. However, I believe that an appointed House would not have very much more legitimacy than a hereditary one.
	It is too easy for the Government to reject our amendments, not on their merits but on the footing that they have been passed by an unelected House, and we have heard that comment made since yesterday's votes in your Lordships' House. That is why our main reaction to the consultation paper is that, frankly, it is a cop-out. An elected second Chamber would strengthen democracy in this country.
	To their credit, the Government recognised that in their manifesto before the 1997 general election and, again, before the general election in 2001. To their discredit, the Government have now opted for an easy life. Indeed, they have done more than that: they have engineered the defeat in the House of Commons on all options for the election of Members of your Lordships' House. As I said on a previous occasion, I consider that to be a betrayal of the Government's manifesto commitments. Therefore, the Government's proposals in their consultation paper represent yet another missed opportunity. They result in little, if any, improvement on the status quo.
	There are, of course, two main elements in the Government's proposals: first, the removal of the 92 remaining hereditary Peers; and, secondly, putting the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis and laying down a formula for the making of appointments both by the commission and by the political parties.
	With regard to the first of those issues—the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers—we on these Benches and our predecessors in the Liberal Party have sought since 1910 to end hereditary membership of your Lordships' House. We supported the removal of the hereditaries in 1999. We were not consulted on the Weatherill amendment, under which the 92 remained as Members of this House, but those 92 were left here for a purpose. They were left as what is described as "the grit in the oyster", and they were left to ensure that the Government could not carry out their manifesto promise to remove the hereditaries, except as part of a full reform of the House of Lords. The Government now propose to break the promises made when your Lordships' House accepted the Weatherill amendment.
	We shall, of course, support, and continue to support, the principle that hereditary membership of your Lordships' House should be abolished. However, the Government cannot rely on us to help them to bring that abolition into effect, except as part of a programme for a full and democratic reform of this House.
	I move on to the second element—the Appointments Commission. So long as this House remains at least partly appointed and includes non-party Members, there will clearly be a need for an Appointments Commission. If so, we agree with, and welcome, the fact that the Appointments Commission will be put on a statutory basis.
	This is not an occasion for going into the details of the proposals for appointments, but I should like to flag up some comments on that issue. We welcome the idea that the Appointments Commission should determine the number of political appointments, although, unlike the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, I do not believe that it should have a role in choosing the appointees. I believe it should continue to play the role carried out in the past by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and that it should ensure that those nominated for appointment are suitable for appointment to your Lordships' House. But it is crucial that the Appointments Commission determines the numbers. That takes that vital decision out of the hands of the Prime Minister. We welcome the proposal that there should be binding guidelines on the way in which the Appointments Commission exercises that power.
	If your Lordships' House is to play a proper role, it should be broadly representative of public opinion but not a clone of the House of Commons. In an age when a party can obtain a massive majority in the House of Commons on little more than 40 per cent of the national vote, surely the share of votes and not the number of seats should be taken into account when allocating the number of appointments; otherwise, we shall create an elective dictatorship which will be even more complete than the one that now exists.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that it is also necessary to ensure that your Lordships' House cannot be used by ambitious young politicians as a stepping stone on their way to the House of Commons. That would change the nature of this House for the worse. It would, for example, make it far more confrontational, and that is something that I believe very strongly we should avoid. I agree that there should be a right of retirement, but that right should be designed so that it cannot be used to enable someone to move speedily into the House of Commons.
	A raft of issues, even on the basis of a wholly appointed House, are not adequately touched on in the consultation paper and they also need to be considered. Again, I agree with the point raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford concerning whether future appointments should be for life or, rather, for a term of, say, 15 years.
	The consultation paper states that there should be diversity among Members, including age diversity. We agree with that. But that means, for example, that if someone is elected as a representative of youth at, say, the age at which the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, became a Member of your Lordships' House and lives to the age which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has presently obtained, he, or she, would have been a Member of your Lordships' House for upwards of 70 years, for most of which he would no longer be suitable to be a representative of youth.
	We consider it desirable for the House to be smaller. It should not include people who are no longer able to contribute on grounds of ill health or, indeed, loss of expertise if they become out of touch with the profession or business which they followed before coming here. An age limit would, indeed, be discriminatory and would exclude the many people of advanced age who have, as has been seen in today's debate, been able to make very important contributions. But a time limit on membership would not be discriminatory.
	The consultation paper talks about a House of 600 Members, of whom 20 per cent, or 120, would be non-party. The Bishops would be retained on top of that, although Law Lords—I say nothing about retired Law Lords—are likely to go. We consider that that would leave your Lordships' House still too big—the limit should be closer to 500. I believe that the Bishops would represent far too large a proportion of the non-party Members if they were to retain their present right to 26 Members. I also ask whether the Government intend to end the convention that former Cabinet Ministers are entitled to a place in your Lordships' House, irrespective of their willingness to contribute to its work.
	We do not consider the Government's proposals to be wholly without merit, especially in transferring the Prime Minister's powers of allocating political appointments to the Appointments Commission. But we believe that the proposals will do little to enhance the membership of your Lordships' House; they will do little to make your Lordships' House more fit for its purpose; and the real tragedy is, I believe, that the Government could and should have done so much more.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin with a public apology to my noble friend Lord Selsdon. Initially I thought that the timing of this debate was not entirely right. However, I was quite wrong. We have had a fascinating debate and one that I have hugely enjoyed, not least the speech of my noble friend and his exposition of some of the facts about our House as opposed to the convenient political myth. I also thank him for giving the Government the chance to make some nice points about the House, about the hereditary Peers and about the Law Lords.
	In the past few days we have heard the usual bluster about hereditary Peers and the need for another place to force changes to the membership of your Lordships' House. Such reactions simply betray the underlying purpose of the Government in pushing for change without consensus. The purpose is political: to change the arithmetic of the House, to expel 20 per cent of non-government Peers and so remove the inconvenience of being asked to rethink controversial policies, such as the restriction of trial by jury and foundation hospitals. However the Government present the changes that they are threatening next Session, they will not wash, either as principle or as genuine reform. It is simply a good, old-fashioned fix.
	Before anyone buys the Government's propaganda it is important to put on record two points. First, this House, as currently composed, is the Government's creation; it is Mr Blair's House. Let it never be forgotten that the Prime Minister himself was a direct and active participant in the undertakings, binding in honour, that were given in 1999. This House was created following huge majorities in both Houses, and its powers and right to use them were never challenged in any of those debates. Indeed, the then Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, said that the House had been made more legitimate and that in future governments must take more note of it. It has not turned out as she promised. That is all very sad. The irony is that for all the doubts that many had in 1999 the House has worked far better than so many of us expected. It has worked well. I fear that it is not the failure of the House that worries the Government, but its successes.
	My second point is that consensus is not, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is fond of saying, beyond reach. On the contrary, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said, there is a wide range of opinion across his party, my party and the Labour Party that could be brought together. The blunt truth is that the Government do not want to seek it.
	In a powerful speech made on another occasion, as he has reminded the House, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, called the Government's actions an act of betrayal. The Lord Chancellor should take particular note of today's speech by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It was a powerful speech in which he warned that the Government should not take Liberal Democrat support for granted.
	When the noble and learned Lord introduces his Bill next Session, he should not expect an easy surrender by this House or by another place. We all know that if the undertakings made in 1999 are successfully dishonoured, a full and fundamental reform will, in all probability, not happen in the near future. A once-in-a-century opportunity to strengthen Parliament, on which so many have worked so hard, will have been lost. The work of Members of this House, like my noble friend Lord Wakeham who chaired the Royal Commission, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who sits on the Royal Commission, will have been lost and the noble and learned Lord will bear a direct personal responsibility for that.
	My noble friend was right to say that the Royal Commission carried out much good work. Why has that work been rejected by the Lord Chancellor? I particularly enjoyed the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the questions that he raised about how the Appointments Commission would work in practice. When the Lord Chancellor replies to the debate I hope that he will tell the House his vision of stage two. I see he nods. We shall all look forward to that. The Government have had 10 years, since Mr Blair promised an end to what he called then an "affront to democracy", to think about it. What an irony it would be if the end to their long 10-year quest resulted in slamming the door on democracy.
	In the context of an appointed House the noble and learned Lord is fond of hinting that while he wants to expel the elected hereditary Peers, he does not really want to expel the hereditary Peers that we have now. He says that we are all wonderful chaps. Perhaps he would tell the House whether life peerages will be on offer, as my noble friend Lord Wakeham suggested. Will all the 33 independent Cross-Bench Peers be invited back? If so, why go through the charade of kicking out Members on one day and inviting them back the next?
	Rather than short-term expedients, should not the Government make at least one more attempt at reaching consensus, rather than plunge Parliament into senseless internal conflict? His argument that it is impossible to reach consensus does not begin to stand up. The House of Commons firmly rejected an all-appointed House, but it was within three votes of voting—on a free vote—for the model proposed by the shadow Cabinet and the Liberal Democrats. That was a vote on which the other place was offered seven different options.
	Have the Government considered going back to the other place with a straight choice between the all-appointed House that they want to create and a predominantly elected House? Using his undoubted influence, he could perhaps organise that before the end of the Session. To plunge on now with unilateral change would not only dishonour the binding undertaking that was given in 1999, that we would not have further change until stage two was presented—something that the Lord Chancellor has freely admitted—but would also make a mockery of those words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, about the legitimacy of the House. It will raise fears that the Government will not accept any second Chamber, however composed, unless it can be relied on to say "Yes".
	Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that it is the Government's intention to present two Bills to this place next Session: one to expel the elected hereditary Peers and one to expel the Law Lords from the House and set up a separate Supreme Court? Does he realise that, in the view of most noble Lords, removing the participation of the Law Lords and the retired Law Lords would hugely diminish this place? What have the noble and learned Lords done wrong to deserve that expulsion or being put out to grass, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, put it? Surely it cannot be that a sentence in the European Convention on Human Rights serves to override centuries of our mixed constitution. If separation of powers is the issue, will he present legislation to remove executive Ministers from this place also? Has the noble and learned Lord had time to study the important response from the Law Lords to his consultation paper and the words of Lord Justice Judge, reported in this morning's press? Will he pay any attention to the concerns that they have raised or do the Government intend to plunge on with unilateral change here too?
	With an inquiry in progress on the costs of the Holyrood Parliament, one concern could be cleared up here and now. The Law Lords are united in arguing that if a new Supreme Court is to be set up, it must be properly housed with all the facilities that it needs to do its work. As the architect of those plans, the noble and learned Lord must have given some thought to it. Will the court be a purpose-built construction? Can he give the House some idea of the cost that he has in mind? A ball-park figure will do. Will it be of the order of £40 million or £400 million? It is inconceivable that he will not have thought about that. Perhaps he could undertake to publish a business plan at the same time as a Bill is laid before Parliament.
	I hope that following this debate the noble and learned Lord can tell us that he is ready to take time to think again. I am sure that all noble Lords would co-operate in ways to save the Prime Minister's face over this summer's fiasco. He made a mistake, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, told him with a characteristic bluntness and integrity, but we should not allow amour propre to override the interests of the House and the senior judiciary.
	We are very close to a threshold in parliamentary history. If the Government proceed as they threaten, the House that my noble friend Lord Selsdon so ably described will cease to exist. Every fibre in me tells me that such far-reaching constitutional change should be taken only with forethought, after consultation and, if possible, with cross-party consent. That is the wise and the honourable course. The noble and learned Lord has both those qualities. He can, even yet, redeem the Government's honour by choosing that course. I hope that he does.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, on giving us this opportunity for what has been in everyone's view a truly excellent debate. We have heard from the chairman of the Royal Commission, a former Speaker of the House of Commons, an extremely distinguished Law Lord, a Bishop who also sat on the Royal Commission, two very distinguished Front-Benchers on behalf of the Opposition parties and the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, himself, who I very much hope will be here for at least 70 years as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sought to deprecate.
	At the heart of the debate is the question of the Government's proposals to reform the House of Lords which I announced on 18th September. Perhaps I may briefly say how we reached that stage without going over the history, which is well known to everyone in the House, and explain our reasons. It is well known to noble Lords that a Bill was introduced in 1999 and that the so-called Weatherill amendment was introduced. It is absolutely right to say that the Weatherill amendment was accepted on the basis that it would provide a way of forcing a consensus to be found on the way forward for stage two of reform and to provide assurance that further reform after the 1999 Act would be forthcoming.
	It was made very clear at the time of the passage of the 1999 Act, and subsequently, that the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, was a transitional measure. When my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg spoke about these amendments in 1999, he made it clear that,
	"the Weatherill amendment is a purely transitional measure"—[Official Report, 22/6/03; col. 795.]
	and that the 1999 Act was a transitional measure providing for a transitional House.
	It was also made abundantly clear at the time of the 1999 Act that the transitional House was expected to last only for a short time. No one envisaged at the time that the transitional House would last for as long as it has. Those reforms, as noble Lords will know, have now been in place for four years.
	The Government have tried to find a way forward and we have failed. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, "Well, you failed because you encouraged your own Back-Benchers to vote against various proposals in the House of Commons". I hope noble Lords will recall the very significant intervention made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, on 18th September when we discussed the Statement I made. He made it clear that the Joint Committee, which is an impressive cross-House organisation, could not reach consensus about an elected element. So, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, he is being unfair when he says that it is some self-induced failure to reach consensus.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving way. It is perhaps not unfair to recall that prior to the votes being taken in the House of Commons—notwithstanding the Labour Party's agreement with the Liberal Democrats prior to 1997 to move to a democratic second phase and indeed its repetition in two election manifestos—the Prime Minister chose to indicate his personal preference for an all-appointed House on the eve of those votes. If that was not an attempt to influence the outcome, I find it very difficult to judge what it was.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it was made clear that it was a free vote; and it was entirely right in my view for the Prime Minister to indicate his view. I simply remind the House of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said. He made it clear that even within the Joint Committee it was not possible to reach a consensus about the way forward regarding an elected element. So I do not think that the House should proceed on the basis that there is a consensus about the way forward.
	It is also worth pointing out that this House voted overwhelmingly for a wholly appointed House. It is perhaps not without significance that there has been a much greater measure of agreement in the debate than perhaps one might have expected on the basis of what had was said on 18th September 2003. Although the reform paper, which was announced on 18th September, does not propose a permanently wholly appointed House, it seeks to deal with many issues that concern this House.
	I return to the very important point made by the noble Lords, Lord Selsdon and Lord Strathclyde. Are we breaking undertakings that were given at the time of the passage of the 1999 Act? The answer is, no, we are not. It is perfectly clear that those undertakings were never intended to operate in perpetuity.
	I was much impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said in quoting the end of his own Royal Commission's report. He said that we should not all quest for perfection or we might lose the prospect of further reform for a generation or even a century. Interestingly enough the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, then echoed that remark. He said that if we pursue our current course there will be no prospect of reform for a generation.
	The Government are faced with this particular conundrum: we now have a House in which there are hereditary Peers; and it is open to the Prime Minister at any time to fill the House and make it any size he wants. The Government take the view that both those propositions are bad for this House, which in very many respects is excellent. A major proposal we have made in relation to the House of Lords Reform Bill is to remove the remaining hereditary Peers—not for one moment because of the way they have conducted themselves, and not for one moment because of their individual qualities, but because we take the view—a view that I think practically everyone in the House agrees with—that there is no longer a place in this country for a place in the legislature on the basis of one's birth. It is for that reason that we think that it is right to proceed on that basis.
	In relation to the statutory Appointments Commission, I understood the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to say that that is a good proposition. I believe that it is a good proposition. Again, everyone in the House would agree that it is wholly unsustainable in this age for the head of the executive to be able to determine the size and political mix of the House. Therefore, if those two proposals go forward, we have a much firmer basis for the continuation of the current arrangements.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that surely we should have one more try in order to get consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as everyone in this House knows, is the epitome of reasonableness. He himself has a most persuasive style. His misfortune in this area is that very unusually for the noble Lord, the one lot that he has totally failed to persuade of his utterly reasonable views is those behind him. They have failed completely to give him—and I cannot understand this—any support whatever for the totally reasonable proposals that he has made from time to time.
	So, where do we go from here? In our view, we have to make progress in relation to getting rid of the hereditary Peers. I am intensely disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says that we cannot count on the Liberal Democrats to support the removal of hereditaries. I am intensely disappointed that that is his view even though—although he had not heard the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, at that point, so perhaps his view will change now that he has heard him—that might mean that the hereditaries do not go for a very long time indeed. I take comfort from the following. The noble Lord said that we cannot count on the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps they will change; their mind remains open on that issue. Perhaps they are having difficulty agreeing the right course. They have campaigned on this for many years, indeed centuries. Maybe they will eventually see what is the right thing to do.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is absolutely right: there is no perfection to the arrangements. However, please do not see the proposals as being issued in bad faith: they are not. Please take note of what the wise noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said on 18th September. These are not his exact words, but he said that we have been circling around the issues for years and years and it demeans the House not to deal with them now. That is what our proposals are intended to do.
	Perhaps I may deal with two other issues that have been raised in the debate. First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is proof positive of the importance of ensuring that there is a place for retired Law Lords in this House. Indeed, in the House of Lords reform paper that we published on 18th September, we made it absolutely clear that the norm would be that on retirement from the Supreme Court—which will become the equivalent of your Lordships' House for appeals—Law Lords would expect to come to your Lordships' House. So I am happy to give the noble and learned Lord the reassurance that he sought.
	The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, referred to the issue of the Speaker of this House—I use that phrase without indicating what the person sitting on the Woolsack should be called; but we all know what the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, was saying. I thoroughly support several of the principles that he described: in particular, that the Speaker should not be appointed by the Government; that the Speaker should eschew party politics; and that whatever arrangements are made—I make no comment on the share out of responsibilities between the Leader of the House and the Speaker—the House plainly and earnestly wants self-regulation to continue.
	I congratulate every Member who took part in the debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that it would be a good thing if the terms of this debate had much wider currency than one could reasonably expect.

House adjourned at two minutes past two o'clock.